8 Ala. App. 93, 62 So. 984; 8 Ala. App. 400, 62 So. 980; 16 Ala. App. 399, 78 So. 315. The indictment need not allege the exact time, but is sufficient if it alleges that this offense was committed since the going into effect of the statute. Laminack v. State, ante, p. 399, 92 So. 502; Id., ante, p. 400, 92 So. 505. MERRITT, J.

In the Coker case, supra, the court held that where an indictment charges a new offense and covers a period when the thing charged was and was not a violation of the law it was defective upon appropriate demurrer for a failure to aver the time of the commission of the alleged offense. "Of the same import are the following authorities: Trent v. State, 15 Ala. App. 485, 73 So. 834; Miller v. State, 16 Ala. App. 534, 79 So. 314; Howard v. State, 17 Ala. App. 464, 86 So. 172; Savage v. State, 18 Ala. App. 299, 92 So. 19; Laminack v. State, 18 Ala. App. 400, 92 So. 505, 506; Clark v. State, 18 Ala. App. 217, 90 So. 16; Kelly v. State, 171 Ala. 44, 55 So. 141." The later decisions are Williams v. State, 24 Ala. App. 262, 134 So. 34; Jinright v. State, 24 Ala. App. 277, 134 So. 456.

THOMAS, J. Petition of George Laminack et al. for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of said court rendered in the case of George Laminack et al. v. State of Alabama, 18 Ala. App. 400, 92 So. 505. Writ denied.

The time of the offense need not be alleged where it is not a material part of the offense. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 237; Henback v. State, 53 Ala. 523, 25 Am.Rep. 650; McDowell v. State, 61 Ala. 172; Adams v. State, 60 Ala. 52; Laminack v. State, 18 Ala. App. 399, 92 So. 502; Id., 207 Ala. 712, 92 So. 920; Laminack v. State, 18 Ala. App. 400, 92 So. 505; Id., 208 Ala. 699, 93 So. 923; Farrister v. State, 18 Ala. App. 390, 92 So. 504.

It sufficiently charges the offense of unlawfully selling whiskey. Howard v. State, 17 Ala. App. 464, 86 So. 172; Laminack v. State, 18 Ala. App. 399, 92 So. 502; Ex parte Laminack, 207 Ala. 712, 92 So. 920; Laminack v. State, 18 Ala. App. 400, 92 So. 505; Presnal v. State, 23 Ala. App. 578, 129 So. 480. Notwithstanding the Act of 1937 established the right to sell liquor with a license, to sell same without a license is still an offense. Gen.Acts 1936-7, p. 40; Code, § 4644.

In the Coker case, supra, the court held that where an indictment charges a new offense and covers a period when the thing charged was and was not a violation of the law it was defective upon appropriate demurrer for a failure to aver the time of the commission of the alleged offense. Of the same import are the following authorities: Trent v. State, 15 Ala. App. 485, 73 So. 834; Miller v. State, 16 Ala. App. 534, 79 So. 314; Howard v. State, 17 Ala. App. 464, 86 So. 172; Savage v. State, 18 Ala. App. 299, 92 So. 19; Laminack v. State, 18 Ala. App. 400, 92 So. 505, 506; Clark v. State, 18 Ala. App. 217, 90 So. 16; Kelly v. State, 171 Ala. 44, 55 So. 141. Appellant complains of the alleged arbitrary action of the court in declining to approve his bill of exceptions for the reason it was not presented in time.

There is no bill of exceptions, the appeal being on the record, and on that it is insisted that error exists in the ruling of the court on demurrer to the first count of the indictment charging that the defendant manufactured whisky. The law making unlawful the act of manufacturing whisky went into effect January 25, 1919; the indictment was returned March 16, 1922. More than three years having elapsed from the enactment of the statute, and allegation specifying the time was not necessary Laminack v. State, 18 Ala. App. 400, 92 So. 505; Farrister v. State, 18 Ala. App. 390, 92 So. 504. There is no error in the record.

The verdict was general, and will be referred to the good count. Laminack v. State, ante, p. 399, 92 So. 502; Id., ante, p. 400, 92 So. 505; Forrister v. State, ante, p. 492, 93 So. 279. There was no error injurious to defendant in the admission of evidence or argument of counsel. 4 Michie, Dig. 322; 12 Michie, Dig. 1190.

The indictment, having been returned less than three years from November 30, 1919, covered a period of time during which it was not a violation of law to possess a still, etc. This necessitated an averment as to time, in the absence of which the second count was fatally defective. Laminack et al. v. State (Ala.App. 7 Div. 774) 92 So. 505; McReynolds v. State (Ala.App.) 89 So. 825; Clark v. State, ante, p. 217, 90 So. 16; Isbell v. ante, p. 223, 90 So. 55. Ante, p. 400.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty, Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The contentions of the appellant are fully answered by section 7139, Code 1907, and by the cases of Laminack v. State, ante, p. 399, 92 So. 502; Id., ante, p. 400, 92 So. 505; Reese v. State, ante, p. 357, 92 So. 77. BRICKEN, P.J.